A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Monday, September 2, 2013

Even though I was not really aware of it for years afterward, I was raised and informed in a union household. My father and my uncle ran a local of the International Longshoreman’s Association, the infamous ILA. I was a boy when my father went from being a union member to running a local. I remember the raucous celebration following his election and also remember having no idea of what exactly it meant. My friends’ fathers all seemed to be cops or firemen. Their jobs were very clearly defined. They wore uniforms. Not so my father, who, suddenly had to wear a suit sometimes. Nor did he explain much. What my brothers and sisters and I picked up about the business of unions, we picked up almost by osmosis. All we knew was that the phone rang at all hours of the day and night. Men were always looking for my father: men with the gruff voices of a long vanished New York, men who pronounced the word “father” as “fadar” as in , “Is your fadar dere?”

The men always seemed to be in trouble. Little by little we learned it was our father’s job as a union guy to help them. I never heard my father say, “ We need to look after each other” or “We need to protect each other.” I never heard my father use words like “empathy” or” brotherhood” or “justice.” And I’m not sure he ever did. I just heard him make those abstractions into realities for men who would have never tasted them, not in a million years, had it not been for the union. And slowly, in time, I learned that that was what unions did. Later, after my father’s death I happened to meet some of the men, here and there. It was as clear to me as it was to them that without the union the quality of their lives would have been grossly diminished. The unions afforded them a living wage and health care and due process and all of these combined afforded them dignity. I shudder to think what would become of them today in a world increasingly without work or unions. I shudder to think of what will become of many of my students when they need to find work in a few years. The union afforded my mother and father the wherewithal to feed, clothe and house no less than eleven children on his single modest salary and even buy us a house. The union, in very real terms, gave me my brothers and sisters. And it gave me something more: it infused in me a belief in the dignity of all labor and the sacrality of all human life. This was an immense gift that came with a sacred obligation.These beliefs sank deep into my bones and they remain there. I am under no illusion that unions are perfect or ideal organizations any more than I am under the illusion that any human organization is perfect or ideal. I know that they can be as corrupt as any government or Wall Street hedge fund and if so they must be reformed.But I am sure of this: the world grows crueler, more savage, more ahuman by the hour, in no small part because of the undermining or destruction of unions and all that comes with them. There are those who say that globalization, de-industrialization, technocracy, and ever increasing corporatism have made unions redundant.They have certainly made them scarce and immensely weakened.The results are obvious for all to see: a terrified and constantly shrinking middle class, less job security, greater fear and stress. This in turn makes us more and more selfish, less and less trusting, less and less fully human. We are perfecting the nightmarish vision of Thomas Hobbes, “The war of one man against all men.” Unions mediated against this horror show.

I understand that there are people, readers of Ayn Rand, for example, who believe that such a vicious fantasy world is somehow only natural and that such a state of ceaseless competition or outright war produces not merely splendid gadgets and gizmos but also freedom loving and heroic individuals; further that those who cannot compete in such a world should have thought of that before they were born.

I say that such a state mass produces spiritual mutants and monsters not unlike the ones currently running our nation and remaking it in their addled, diseased image.

I say the greatest display of freedom and heroism is to fully love another human being and that such an act is highly unlikely in a world fueled by insecurity and fear and limitless greed.

I say we have to find some kind of way to spark a rebirth of unionism in this nation or we will almost all soon be living lives that are barely recognizable as human.

The arbitration decision in Leass should be used in grievances to uproot the administration stronghold on observations in teachers' files.

______________________________________x

In the Matter of Arbitration between

UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

and

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x

O P I N I O N

Cases Nos. 1330-0324-74 (Mae Leass)

and 1330-0615-73 (Bertil Swanteson)

Arbitrability of claims re materials in

official files

Issues

Bertil
Swanteson, a teacher of social studies at Washington Irving High School, and
Mae Leass, formerly a guidance counselor at Thomas Jefferson High School, have
submitted a number of complaints charging, among other things, that documents
placed in their official files were inaccurate and/or unfair and should be
removed from these files in accordance with the provisions of the Agreements
covering, respectively, Classroom Teachers and Guidance Counselors.In addition, Mr. Swanteson has charged
intentional harassment by members of his school administration.The Board contends that none of these charges
presents an arbitrable issue under the cited Agreements.

The
issue here considered is whether supervisory evaluations and observation
reports are subject to review under the grievance and arbitration provisions of
the Agreements, as claimed violations of Article IV F 20 of the 1972-75
Classroom Teachers’ Agreement, or Article V 5 of the 1972-75 Guidance
Counselors’ Agreement.(Reference
hereinafter to teachers is meant to include both classroom teachers and
guidance counselors.)

The
question of arbitrability of Mr. Swanteson’s claims of harassment is the
subject of a separate decision, and is not considered here.

Discussion
of the merits of both of these grievances is deferred to later proceedings.

Contract
Provisions

Article IV F of the Classroom
Teachers Agreement provides:

20.Teacher Files

Official
teacher files in a school shall be maintained under the following
circumstances:

1.No material derogatory to a
teacher’s conduct, service, character or personality shall be placed in the
files unless the teacher has had an opportunity to read the material.The teacher shall acknowledge that he has
read such material by affixing his signature on the actual copy to be filed,
with the understanding that such signature merely signifies that he has read
the material to be filed and does not necessarily indicate agreement with its
content.However, an incident which has
not been reduced to writing within three months of its occurrence, exclusive of
the summer vacation period, may not later be added to the file.

2.The teacher shall have the right to
answer any material filed and his answer shall be attached to the file copy.

3.Upon appropriate request by the
teacher, he shall be permitted to examine his files.

4.The teacher shall be permitted to
reproduce any material in his files.

5.Material will be removed from the
files when a teacher’s claim that it is inaccurate or unfair is sustained.

The
same provision is included as Article V 5 in the Guidance Counselor’s
Agreement, except that the reference is to counselors rather than teachers.

Principal
Contentions

The
Board contends that observation reports and supervisory evaluations are matters
of professional judgment; they are not subject to challenge or review under the
grievance and arbitration provisions of the Agreement.The Board argues that such review was never
intended, that this was so understood and accepted in contract negotiations,
that the Chancellor has so ruled in a number of Step 3 decisions which were
accepted and not appealed to arbitration, that Union Counsel has so advised the
members in the Union’s publication, and that this basic contention has been
sustained in a prior Award of this Arbitrator (Case No. 1330-0175-72, Mary
Posner).

The
Board distinguishes grievances relating to paragraphs 1 through 4 of Article IV
F 20, which are essentially procedural, and those relating to paragraph 5,
which conveys substantive rights.While
some materials in a teacher’s file may be challenged under the grievance
procedure, it was never intended that professional judgments and evaluations of
a teacher’s performance should be subject to arbitral review.This distinction, the Board argues, was
recognized and accepted in the Posner case, cited above.

The
Board acknowledges that a teacher or counselor may grieve over matters not
appropriately included in an observation report or evaluation.(Footnote 1:Miss Klaus, then Director of Staff Relations, testified that it was not
originally intended that any claims arising under Paragraph 5 or Article IV F
20 should be subject to review under the grievance and arbitration provisions;
that all such claims would be referable to other avenues of appeal.She stated, however, that since the Board did
not press this claim in prior arbitrations, it does not now contest the
arbitrability of matters arising under this contract provision which do not
involve observation reports or supervisory evaluations.[This claim was made, and rejected, in Case
1339-0522-69, Irving Kafka].)However,
the Board rejects as “illusory and impractical” the Union’s contention that
claims of factual error within an evaluation or observation report may be
grieved or arbitrated.To do so would
leave a judgment and conclusion without any factual evidence or identification
to give it meaning.

The
Union contends that all provisions of Article IV F 20 are subject to the
grievance and arbitration provisions of the Agreement, that this has been
acknowledged and agreed with respect to sections 1 through 4, that no
distinction is made in the wording of section 5, and none was intended, and
that there is no other forum for appeal.While the Bylaws make special provision for review of performance, such
review is limited to the appeal of Unsatisfactory ratings, under restricted
procedures, with no right of counsel and no appeal to outside authority.Moreover, if section 5 is to have any meaning,
it must afford prior review and, if the teacher’s claim is sustained, removal
of the offending material from the files before such files are
considered in the appeal of an Unsatisfactory rating under Section 105(a) of
the Bylaws.

The
Union denies any binding practice whereby supervisory evaluations have been
excluded from grievance and arbitral review.Failure to appeal third step rulings in particular instances cannot be
construed as Union acceptance of the Board’s position.Moreover, the Union argues that other
contract provisions, in which there is no claim of exemption from grievance and
arbitration, involve professional judgment; e.g., Article V A 3 h, which
affords certain rights of seniority in appointments “if not inconsistent with
the needs of the school.”

Discussion

By
the letter of the Agreement, the Union’s position would seem to be
correct.There is nothing in the wording
of Article IV F 20 of the Classroom Teachers’ Agreement or Article V 5 S of the
Guidance Counselors’ Agreement, which asserts or implies immunity from challenge
and review under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the
Agreement.Neither is there any language
which expresses or implies any such exclusion of supervisory evaluations,
within the totality of documents in teacher files, from grievance or arbitral
review.

True,
the Agreement excludes from the definition of a grievance “any matter as to
which (1) a method of review is prescribed by ... any by-law of the Board of
Education.”(Article X, Grievance
Procedure, A.Definition)But a teacher’s right of review under the
bylaws is limited to the appeal of an Unsatisfactory rating.The proceedings afford no opportunity of
challenge of the fairness or accuracy of documents in the file of a teacher who
is rated Satisfactory, even though such materials could be used adversely to
the teacher’s interests or advancement in other situations.Also, the procedures and the scope of 105(a)
proceedings are different.Neither the
teacher nor the Union has any say in the selection of the review panel.The teacher has no right of representation by
counsel.Moreover, the Agreement
provides that material which is inaccurate or unfair should be removed from the
file; it follows that such material should not be a part of any records before
a supervisor or reviewing official at some future time, particularly an appeal
body considering an appeal from an Unsatisfactory rating.

Nevertheless,
I am persuaded that the parties did intend an exclusion of supervisory
judgments and evaluations of a teacher's performance from arbitral
review. This conclusion is based in part on the inherent nature of the
problem and the judgments to be made. Questions of teaching methods and
the conduct and proficiency of teachers in the classroom are matters for
professional evaluation. Similarly, it is to be noted that review of
Unsatisfactory ratings, or appeals from disciplinary actions or discharge, are
referable to other avenues of appeal and excluded from the grievance and
arbitration provisions of the Agreement.

It
is significant, in my judgment, that the Union's counsel has expressed a
similar view. In a column written for the Union's publication, the New
York Teacher, December 17, 1972, Mr. Eugene Kaufman, Co-General Counsel,
NYSUT, reviewed various ways by which a teacher could protect his or her
interest in the official files, including recourse to the grievance procedure
to insure the removal of improper documents from the file. In this
connection, Mr. Kaufman also pointed out that:

“Unfortunately, for the most part, observation
reports are not grievable. While you may not like the contents of such a
report, it is an expression of opinion of a supervisor and cannot be overturned
either through grievance or arbitration.”

Mr. Kaufman went on to say:

“Of course, if such a report contains a statement which is
not factual, that statement can be attacked. The best thing to do with
the observation report is to prepare a response, and rebut what has been
said.” (“Legal Column” in the New York Teacher, December 17,
1972.)

In testimony in this proceeding Mr.
Kaufman again stated the view that pedagogical judgments in the evaluation of a
teacher's performance were not subject to arbitral review. However, he
was firmly of the opinion that a misstatement of fact in any document,
including observation reports of a supervisor, is subject to challenge and
review under the grievance and arbitration procedures.

The
principal spokesman for the Board, Miss Ida Klaus, then Director of Staff
Relations, appears to agree in part with the Union position. As noted
above, Miss Klaus maintained that supervisory evaluations of teachers are
matters of professional judgment and are not subject to the grievance
procedure. Miss Klaus admitted to certain exceptions, however, particularly
the inclusion in such reports of matters not actually observed but based on
hearsay, or comments on matters which are not part of teaching duties.
But such exceptions, in her view, do not extend to the accuracy or fairness of
a proper evaluation of the teaching function by a supervisor.

The
Board maintains that this distinction has been recognized and accepted by both
parties; that no grievance claim relating to evaluation reports in teachers’
files was brought to Step 3 of the grievance procedure during the first three
and a half years of Section 5’s appearance in the Agreement; that the first
case which posed this issue was the grievance of Ferne Levit, filed in the
spring of 1971.In this case the Hearing
Officer’s findings, approved by the Chancellor and never appealed by the Union,
clearly stated the Board’s position, including the following:

“Facts of
the Case -- Basis of the Appeal”

“1.The report of the
lesson of February 26, 1970 commends the teacher for some good features but documents
in some detail the criticism that she adhered too rigidly to her prepared
lesson-plan, failing to take full advantage of student interests as revealed by
their questions.”

***

“Relevant Considerations”

“1.The By-laws and
the established policies and practices of the Board of Education call for
principals to observe teachers in their performance of their basic
instructional tasks and to evaluate this professional performance on the basis
of these observations and other sources of information available to the
supervisor.The supervisor is expected
to use this knowledge by making appropriate suggestions for improvement and in
preparing various formal appraisals among which are the reports for continued
service or permanent appointment.”

“Of necessity, thee will result value judgments and
appraisals based on the supervisor’s philosophy of education, the relative
weight he attaches to different aspects of the teaching act, the significance
attached to different aspects of the school situation and other similar
considerations.”

“Disagreement by a teacher with a supervisor’s evaluation of
her performance in her basic professional role cannot be equated with the
‘inaccuracy’ or ‘unfairness’ that may on occasion be present in filed material
critical of an employee’s service when carrying out other responsibilities.”

“2.The Board of
Education in concluding a collective bargaining agreement with the United
Federation of Teachers did not intend to alter this long-standing relationship
of supervisor to teacher -- an essential element of the functions of schools as
educational institutions.The various
clauses of the Agreement do not modify this relationship and may not be used to
do so.”

“The grievance machinery then cannot be invoked to challenge
the conclusions of a supervisor in his evaluation of the quality of a teacher’s
professional performance.”

***

“Findings”

“Appraisals of the quality of a teacher’s performance in
carrying out his basic professional tasks are not reviewable through the
grievance machinery.”

The
decision in Levit was not appealed.The Union argues that failure to appeal a particular decision cannot be
construed as a waiver of position.Perhaps so in most situations, although Levit must be recognized
as a leading precedent on an issue of vital importance.Moreover, the rule of Levit has been
repeated in other cases, without appeal, prior to the third step decision in
the case of Mae Leass.In any event, it
is not necessary to hold the Union in forfeit by its failure to appeal these
cases to arbitration.In my judgment,
the Chancellor’s conclusions in the case of Ferne Levit were essentially
correct.

While
Levit was a major precedent, it is not correct to hold that the Board
has been consistent in the various cases which have posed the question of the
right of appeal from the judgments of supervisors.Neither can we accept the statement that
“from 1967 through 1971 no grievance claiming that documents evaluatory of a
pedagogue’s professional performance were inaccurate or unfair was brought to
Step 3 of the grievance procedure.”(Board’s Brief, p. 6)At least
three such complaints were made and appealed to arbitration under the 1967-69
Agreement, all alleging that statements of school principals in teachers’ files
were inaccurate and/or unfair.(Cases
1339-0757-68, Adele Greenberger; 1339-0522-69, Irving Kafka; 1339-0683-68,
Steven Angelo).In Greenberger
and Kafka the issue was limited to the “grievability” of the teachers’
complaints, the Superintendent having ruled that these complaints were not
subject to the grievance procedure.In
both cases the arbitrator ruled that the complaints constituted grievances within
the meaning of the Agreement and the refusal of the Superintendent to consider
these grievances was violative of the Agreement.And in Greenberger Board’s Counsel
stated:

“To the extent that the Union claims
that Mrs. Greenberger’s complaint constitutes a grievance because it involves a
document in her official file maintained by her principal, the Board agrees
with that contention.”(Record, p. 21)

In
Kafka the Board maintained that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to
consider the merits of the teacher’s claim.At best, the Board asserted, the arbitrator could only be concerned with
the enforcement of the ruling of some other, unnamed, authority to whom the
teacher’s complaint might be submitted.In Angelo the Board’s contention was precisely the reverse.The Board did not contest arbitrability of
the teacher’s claim that the principal’s letter, charging him with failure to
conduct certain laboratory work, was inaccurate and unfair; the Board merely
challenged the authority of the arbitrator to award a remedy.(The case of Angelo was settled and withdrawn
before decision.)

In
several cases which followed Levit the Chancellor has ruled that claims
of inaccuracy or unfairness in observation reports may not be raised under the
grievance procedure.(E.g., Step 3
decisions in the cases of Kathleen Sullivan and Audrey Macbeth).In other instances the Board has acknowledged
grievance claims within teacher evaluations.Thus, Lawrence Dorson protested the inclusion in an observation report
of a criticism of his failure to wear a tie in class; and Leslie Kingon was
criticized for his assignment of a certain book which was not on the approved
list for his class.Both teachers
grieved, both grievances were denied as non-grievable at steps 1 and 2 of the
grievance procedure, and in both cases the Chancellor reversed these decisions,
holding that the teacher’s claim that these particular judgments of the school
principals were not properly included in an observation report was grievable,
even though in each instance the claim was denied on its merits.

In
a third step decision on the grievance of Jean Mott, dated June 6, 1974, the
Chancellor reviewed the records of seven reports of supervisors which were
grieved by Mott.As to three of these,
all letters from the school principal based on class visits, the Chancellor
found that certain statements were inaccurate or unfair.Two of these involved statements that
children had left the classroom, or that certain children reported late.The third related to an alleged failure of
the teacher to send letters to the parents, which was held to be unrelated to
any act of the teacher during the observation, and later found to be untrue in
fact.The Board notes in its brief that
the incidents discussed might have been considered non-grievable, as resulting
from the principal’s observations of classroom events, but the grievance was
entertained since these incidents “were not essentially educational in
nature.”It stated:“The grievance machinery is available only
to determine whether matters referred to in an observation report are proper
parts of that report.If they are, then
the portrayal of those matters may not be reviewed in the grievance
process.If the matters are not proper
parts of the observation reports, however, fairness or accuracy of their
portrayal may be determined in that process.”The case of Mott suggests that this is a fine line of distinction which
might be bridged or not at the Board’s discretion.Certainly allegations of a teacher’s
mishandling of classroom order or discipline are likely to be considered
important elements of supervisory evaluation.A misstatement of fact, based on a misunderstanding of the supervisor,
is of vital concern to the teacher, whether the error appears in an observation
report or some other document, which both parties recognize as grievable.

As
noted heretofore, the Board cites Union Counsel Kaufman on the non-grievability
of professional evaluations of a teacher's performance and proficiency, but
takes strong exception to his contention that factual allegations within such
reports may be challenged under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the
contract. Board's counsel states:

“Mr. Kaufman's claim that factual
matters in such evaluations could be the subject of grievances is an impractical
and illusory attempt to distinguish the indistinguishable. While such a
distinction may appear reasonable at first, a thorough examination of an
evaluatory report reveals that a rending of it into its factual and conclusory
aspects is impossible. Such a report ordinarily sets forth those
significant events which the supervisor has observed and then draws conclusions
based upon his view of their educational soundness. The two are so
intertwined and interrelated that to attempt to separate them would be
analogous to Hercules' attempt to unravel the Gordian knot. ... The conclusions
of the report, which Mr. Kaufman has admitted are not grievable, depend upon
the factual matters set forth therein. To remove essential facts, which
Mr. Kaufman claims is possible, would leave only unsupported conclusions,
creating, in effect, a travesty of an observation report. As Hercules
destroyed his problem rather than solving it, so this attempted separation of
facts and conclusions would destroy an observation report.” (Brief, pp.
11-12)

“Mr. Kaufman's proposal for the
handling of grievances concerning supervisory evaluations would leave, if the
grievant were sustained in a claim of factual error, only baseless charges, not
conclusions. Such a result was never agreed to by the Board.”
(Brief, p. 14)

In
my judgment, this argument is without merit. It seems to say that if an
evaluator's conclusions rest on assertions of fact which are shown to be false,
the assertions must remain lest the conclusion be seen as baseless. The
argument is untenable. If the conclusions of an evaluator rest on
assertions of fact which are shown to be false, the conclusions have no
validity and should, in all fairness, be deleted. And the same result
would obtain, it should be noted, if the Board were upheld in its original
position that Article IV F 20 (5) was intended to provide for review of the
accuracy and fairness of evaluative reports by some other appellate body, apart
from the contract grievance procedures. Certainly if such evaluations
should remain in the files, while the factual basis for such conclusions has
been found to be false, the teacher should have the right to make it known, as
a matter of record, that the judgment rests on factual allegations which have
been deemed false and expunged from the record.

The
question of fairness of statements in a teacher’s file is perhaps more
subtle.I agree with the Board’s
contention that critical appraisals of a teacher’s conduct and performance in the
teaching function are matters of professional judgment and are not meant to be
subject to challenge or review under the grievance and arbitration provisions
of the Agreement.One need not rely on
written or oral commitments, or the proofs thereof, to hold that this is an
implied understanding in the professional relationships of teachers or guidance
counselors with their supervisors.But
there may still be areas in which the documents in a teacher’s file are properly
subject to a test of fairness, as well as accuracy, and which do not require or
imply a judgment of professional educators.This arbitrator stated in the case of Francine Newman:

“It is not just a question of the
accuracy of the facts reported in a document. ... a letter which is technically
accurate as to facts could lead to wholly false inferences on the part of a
reader not familiar with the details.The question at issue concerns the inferences which might reasonably
drawn from this letter, particularly on the part of a person who is not
familiar with the details of the incident.”(Opinion, p. 8, Case No. 1339-1109-70).

As noted in the particulars of that
case, statements which are technically, or literally, accurate may suggest or
lend themselves to false or misleading conclusions.

Decision

For
the reasons, and subject to the limitations, discussed above, the arbitrator
holds that a claim that statements in supervisory evaluations and observation
reports are inaccurate or unfair presents a grievable and arbitrable issue
under the Agreement.

Testimonials From Some of Our Clients

“Dear Betsy,
I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert advice throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn’t even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent
Maria G;

Alexandra F.

Dear Betsy,

I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for CONSTANTLY being there for me throughout such a tumultuous time in my life. I have been battling severe harassment at my place of work for months now, and you have advised me through every single second of it. I would not have had the strength or confidence to battle such an evil administration without your help. You have answered my phone calls from 7AM through nearly midnight with any and all of my concerns. I have called you countless times to just vent, or even cry, and you have been there with open arms to pivot my negative anticipations into positive advocacy. You have gone above and beyond your line of duty to help me, and for that, I can never repay you. You have changed the outcome of my life, and led me to justice. More importantly, you have led me to happiness again, for which I am eternally grateful. As I am getting older, I am realizing that there are many bad people in this world, but you are TRULY one of the good ones. When one finds a great person in life with their true best interest at heart, they should hold onto that and take their word as bond. My last statement truly defines you, an expert in what you do, as well as a 24 hour support system. You are amazing Betsy, and my life would truly not be the same if you had not stepped into it!!!!!

Thank you again for EVERYTHING you have done for me. Your advisement and care will be carried in my heart for the rest of my life.

Alexandra F.

Tollyne D.

After 18 years of service, the general consensus as a union member is that you cannot trust people and you have to be extremely careful who you talk to. I was brought up being told that I should be sure that the person I am speaking to is knowledgeable and to be TRUSTED, and Betsy Combier is such a person. She consistently proves that she is trustworthy, very knowledgeable and caring, time and time again.

Tollyne D.

David P.

To whom this may concern,
I want to recommend Betsy Combier as the best person you could have in your corner. From the first day I met Betsy I felt secure. I had the misfortune of having to go through a 3020a hearing and with help of Ms. Combier my job was secure, I don’t know where I would be without Betsy’s help and support. She is still assisting me with my federal case. I could not recommend Betsy any higher, she is a person of her word, and her expertise is important and necessary for everyone without any problem.
David P.

Jason R.

I met Betsy Combier approximately about 5 years ago, as a result of a recommendation from a colleague. Since then she has been an advocate of mine ever since, and has worked above and beyond my expectation. Betsy fights against the wrongdoing of public education officials in New York City. Throughout the extremely difficult arbitration, Betsy fought for my unalienable rights, even though my former principal did everything in her power to tarnish my name and damage my career.
Betsy is not an attorney yet she has the experience and knowledge that is above and beyond that of an attorney and follows through on all issues. She is truly an angel from heaven above, and a quality public defender.

Laura B.

I was charged with a 3020A in October 2016 after receiving three developing ratings in a row. I called numerous law firms as well as my union. Most people who I talked to said that I should settle because I was fighting a losing battle. A lawyer told me that anyone that says you can win a 3020A is a liar. I heard about Betsy from a teacher placed in my building who was going through the 3020A process. I hired Betsy and one of the Attorneys who works with her and her company, and won my case! Betsy saved my job and saved my life because she was emotionally supportive at a time when I needed it the most. Betsy goes above and beyond for her clients. She is readily available day and night for her clients. Betsy’s knowledge of education law is exceptional and she was a great help to my attorney. Betsy is relentless and fights hard for her clients.

ADVOCATZ

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Betsy Combier

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

- Aristotle

Important Numbers

Amy Arundel (ATR Point Person) 212-510-6468

UFT www.uft.org

OPI (Problem Code) 1-718-935-2666

UFT Certification Services 1-212-420-1830

Teachers REtirement System 1-888-869-2877

Mandated Reporters 1-800-635-1522

Staten Island UFT 1-718-605-1400

Brooklyn UFT 1-718-852-4900

Bronx UFT 1-718-379-6200

Manhattan UFT 1-212-598-6800

Queens UFT 1-718-275-4400

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

Rally November 2008 at Tweed

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

Thousands of teachers and school staff members rally at Tweed

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.